Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Mark's typical calorie intake from Book page

  1. #1
    Jedi's Avatar
    Jedi is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    57

    1



    This is I guess a comment and query. I am into my second reading of the book and yeh it's that interesting for me. One thing that surprised me was Mark's average calorie consumption from the three days he gave us. It was around 1800 cals per day, which for his height/Wt and activity level seems real low. now I know he says on a primal diet he can get by on fewer calories, but I can see critics saying that the only reason this works for fat loss is simply restricted calories. Any thoughts? I mean if that's what he needs at 125 pounds I am only going to need around 1400 cals which seems like a permanent diet to me? What are your experiences?


  2. #2
    brahnamin's Avatar
    brahnamin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    brahnamin@gmail.com
    Posts
    942

    1



    Well, the weight loss equation of any diet IS a calorie deficit.


    What the critics will ignore (or never even learn) is that a primal diet is about much more than just losing weight.


    Plus, such a criticism would be misplaced in the instance of Mark's calorie intake because he isn't losing weight. He is maintaining his weight.


    And apparently 1800 calories (I don't have the book, so I'll trust you've done the math) is all he needs to maintain.


    Primal aside (and using the pronouns *our* & *we* in the most generic way possible), I don't think our current calorie intake in this country is anything close to what it was even 100 years ago. I think we eat much more now.


    And if I had to hazard a guess without doing any actual scienmatifical researches I'd say it's probably a combination of hype (both from marketing giants and the medical establishment) and our bodies screaming for more and more food because there was nothing worthwhile in what we just fed it.


  3. #3
    Anonymous's Avatar
    Anonymous Guest

    1



    generally, for weight loss under traditional 'calorie in, calorie out' models, calorie intake is based on 10x your goal weight for men. So, if I want to weigh 150 lbs, my target is 1500 calories. Mark weighs ~165, so 1800 calories is probably about right for him. More traditional methods would probably put him higher - closer to 2000 calories, but I don't know how closely he watches those calories.


    For women, I think the multiplier is 15x, since women have more body fat than men.


    Once you're low carb, though, watching the fat calories as closely isn't quite as important. One of the few methods that fat is stored is through insulin in the body. On a normal high carb person, there's plenty of insulin in the body because it's constantly being released to deal with the amount of sugar in the blood. In a low carb person, there's not nearly as much insulin in the blood, so the body ends up being more efficient with it all and the fat doesn't get stored.


  4. #4
    Tarlach's Avatar
    Tarlach is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    48

    1



    Calorific deficit is not the only way to lose weight.


    If you get your fat high, your carbs low and get rid of dairy (which stalls weight loss), you can lose weight while eating much more calories than you expend.

    The "Seven Deadly Sins"

    Grains (wheat/rice/oats etc) . . . . . Dairy (milk/yogurt/butter/cheese etc) . . . . . Nightshades (peppers/tomato/eggplant etc)
    Tubers (potato/arrowroot etc) . . . Modernly palatable (cashews/olives etc) . . . Refined foods (salt/sugars etc )
    Legumes (soy/beans/peas etc)

  5. #5
    brahnamin's Avatar
    brahnamin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    brahnamin@gmail.com
    Posts
    942

    1



    Erm. If you say so. Bucking the energy ratio like that would seem to defy the laws of physics, though. Even if you reduce insulin output to almost nil and are storing very little of what you eat as fat what you take in is still going somewhere.


    Perhaps I've just not yet laid eyes on the pertinent data.


  6. #6
    NeoPaleo's Avatar
    NeoPaleo is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    18

    1



    On page 262 - referring to his eating of 2087 calories for the day (on day 2), he says "...I ate fewer calories than I normally do."


    Plus, I could *swear* that somewhere he references the 774 calorie day (day 1) and says something to the effect that it's only a third of what he normally eats in a day.


    I was under the impression that he eats 2500-3000 cals per day.


  7. #7
    Anonymous's Avatar
    Anonymous Guest

    1



    problem with the 'laws of physics' concept when it comes to using calories is that your body uses calories in different ways. this is one of the concepts discussed in 'good calories, bad calories.' It's akin to pouring 1/2 of a bucket with gasoline and the other 1/2 with water. Throw a match on it, and it'll happily burn. So water is flammable, yes?


    Consider if I put a bowl of sugar in front of you, and handed you a spoon, and you had to eat 2000 calories worth. How long would you feel 'full' after that?


    It's important to understand how the different macronutrients work together - most importantly the tie between fat and carbohydrates. Consider the above example, or if I were to give you a stick of butter. How much could you really consume? Probably not that much. Mix the two together, and you have frosting. You probably couldn't stop eating it.


    (The other example I realized recently is french fries - do you use ketchup? Ketchup is mostly sugar, so, the same model, carbs + fat)


    When the carbohydrates are eaten, insulin is released. Which makes you feel 'good'. The more insulin in your body, the easier it is for your body to store fat.


  8. #8
    NeoPaleo's Avatar
    NeoPaleo is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    18

    1



    brahnamin - I've read in a few places (I wish I could remember where) that as long as you're NOT eating much carbs, your body is not producing much insulin, and so your body has no easy way to store dietary fat in your body fat - but instead can only use what it needs for energy, and then just gets rid of the extra. I don't know exactly what your body would have to do to "get rid" of the extra. Is it possible? Maybe I'm imagining things. But maybe not.


    There's a forum for full-on 100% carnivores (http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/) where someone there ("Dean" I think) ate up to 4000 calories a day for a month (I think a month) of only meat (with lots of fat) and didn't do any exercise, but still lost weight. There's a day-by-day log somewhere in one of the threads over there.


    Obviously not very scientific, but...


  9. #9
    brahnamin's Avatar
    brahnamin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    brahnamin@gmail.com
    Posts
    942

    1



    @ Tim & Neo (& Tarlach)


    Hrm.


    Well, I'm always ready to be wrong. Grok knows CW hasn't managed to steer me right yet, so maybe I just have one more illusion to ditch.


    Thanks for the link, too.


    Sounds like an interesting read if nothing else.


  10. #10
    zlangley's Avatar
    zlangley Guest

    1

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification


    @brahnamin


    This interview with Gary Taubes should answer your question: http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_a...getting_leaner


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •